Power as a Determinant of

Power as a Determinant of International Behavior

Power is one of the words most frequently used in the study of
poltical science, especially in international relations. The absence of
at the international level of adequate institutions and procedures for
resolving conflict comparable to those in most domestic political
systems makes the so-called power element more obvious than at the
domestic level. In a textbook first published in 1933, Frederick L.
Schumann held that in an international system lacking a common
government, each unit “necessarily seeks safety by relying on its own
power and viewing with alarm the power of its neighbors.” According
to Nicholas J. Spykman, “All civilized life rests in the last
instance on power.” Power is the ability to move the individual or
the human collectivity in some desired fashion. Hans J. Morgenthau even
defined international politics, and indeed all politics, as a
“struggle for power.” Thus power has been conceptualized---with
some confusion---as both a means and an end. Morgenthau held that power
is “man’s control over the minds and actions of other men.” {…}
{…}the power of a state is said to consist of capabilities, some of
which are economic in nature---such as the levels of industrialization
and productivity, gross national product, national income and income on
a per capita basis. In an analysis of the economic dimension of
international politics and the political aspects of international
economics, Charles P. Kindleberger assesses power in its intertwined
economic and political contexts. He defines power as “strength
capable of being used efficiently,” that is, “strength plus
the capacity to use it effectively” in support of some objective.
Thus like several other writers, Kindleberger distinguishes between
means and ends, or the use of means for the attainment of ends. Thus
strength is a means that exists even in the absence of its use for some
goal, whereas power is the use of strength for a particular purpose.
According to Kindleberger, “Prestige is the respect which is paid to
power. Influence is the capacity to affect the decisions of others.
Force is the use of physical means to affect those decisions. Dominance
is defined as the condition under which A affects a significant number
of B’s decisions without B affecting those of A.” Power, thus
conceptualized, is related in Kindleberger’s analysis of adaptability
and flexibility in a nation’s economy. Such is the meaning of
efficiency in the use of power. Thus, power is dynamic and changing,
rather than static in nature. Those states or other entities best able
to adjust to change are likely to possess power, and to make most
effective use of it in support of posited goals. {…}Power exists to a
certain extent in the eyes of the beholder. The element of perception,
or subjective assessment, may be high in calculating the resolve of an
adversary to use effectively the power at its disposal. Similar
considerations are operative in deterrence theory, which in turn is
closely related to power as discussed here. The perceptual dimension of
power has been studied by the scoring and ranking of 103 nations in
terms of power perception. It was concluded that the perceived national
power is some function of military expenditures if the state has not
been at war recently. {…}
Contending Theories of International Relations James E. Dougherty and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr